In response to my question, Peter Brantley has added a comment about what Innovative Interfaces said when deciding to "abstain" instead of supporting the Berkeley Accord on a standard discovery layer for integrated library systems:
"We generally agree with the comments expressed by our colleagues that there is a significant amount of work involved in fully describing the details of a meaningful interoperabilty mechanism between ILS and discovery. At the same time, we feel that expressing a position on the proposal without the benefit of fully understanding such details is premature. As a result, we respectfully abstain from commenting on the proposal at this time."
Betsy Graham of Innovative has noted in a blog post that III's abstention ended with the phrase, “We look forward to hearing more on this proposal in the near future.”
Innovative is apparently claiming that it's too early in the process for them to participate, and that they will wait for others to do more work before joining.
I guess I don't see how it is in their long-term interest to be the one major vendor not supporting the eventual interoperability standard. So if they do plan on supporting it later, the question becomes just how long they feel that it's better to let their competitors shape it without their input?
"We generally agree with the comments expressed by our colleagues that there is a significant amount of work involved in fully describing the details of a meaningful interoperabilty mechanism between ILS and discovery. At the same time, we feel that expressing a position on the proposal without the benefit of fully understanding such details is premature. As a result, we respectfully abstain from commenting on the proposal at this time."
Betsy Graham of Innovative has noted in a blog post that III's abstention ended with the phrase, “We look forward to hearing more on this proposal in the near future.”
Innovative is apparently claiming that it's too early in the process for them to participate, and that they will wait for others to do more work before joining.
I guess I don't see how it is in their long-term interest to be the one major vendor not supporting the eventual interoperability standard. So if they do plan on supporting it later, the question becomes just how long they feel that it's better to let their competitors shape it without their input?
No comments:
Post a Comment